Is there a force exerted on both particles in the moving charge paradox?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the moving charge paradox involving two charged particles, one moving and one stationary. Participants explore the implications of reference frame transformations on the forces experienced by the particles, particularly in the context of electromagnetic fields and the Lorentz force. The scope includes theoretical considerations and relativistic effects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a force is exerted on both particles when viewed from a frame moving at half the speed of the moving charge.
  • Another participant suggests that any charged particle moving past another will have some effect, though they express uncertainty about the specifics.
  • A different participant mentions the need to transform reference systems and relates this to the Lorentz force and the paradox presented.
  • It is noted that in the original frame, the magnetic field does not exert a force on the stationary charge, but the electric field does, leading to a discussion about forces in different frames.
  • Some participants discuss the effects of a uniform magnetic field on a charge at rest and the implications of moving the magnetic field while the charge remains stationary.
  • One participant emphasizes that the Lorentz force cannot be determined solely from the magnetic field without considering the electric field as well.
  • Another participant provides a detailed mathematical formulation of the Lorentz force and electromagnetic tensor, illustrating how the forces transform between frames.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the effects of moving charges and electromagnetic fields, with no clear consensus reached on the implications of the paradox. Multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of forces in different reference frames.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the behavior of electric and magnetic fields under transformations, as well as the conditions under which forces are calculated. Some mathematical steps and definitions are not fully resolved, leaving room for interpretation.

pixel01
Messages
688
Reaction score
1
Hi there, here I have this paradox and hope you can explain.
There are 2 charged particles, one is moving at speed v, one is stationary. We know the moving charge gives off a magnetic field which can not exert any force onto the other charge because it does not move.
Now assume we stay in a frame which moves at a speed of v/2 (the same direction with the moving charge). We can see the first charge moves at v/2 and the second also moves as v/2 (opposite direction) and so there should be some force exerting on both particles?

Thanks for reading and forgive me if my english is not clear enough.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, I'm not sure I understand your question, but it seems reasonable that any charged particle speeding past close enough to another will have some effect.
 
I asked myself the same one time ago, and I think in this case you have to transform your reference systems in terms of S/R. It can't be a coincidence that the LORENTZ-Force is subject to this "paradox", after all, heh?

Honestly, I've no clue.
 
To resolve this "paradox" you need to use relativity theory. When you switch between reference frames, electric and magnetic fields are "mixed up" by the Lorentz transformation. The electric and magnetic fields individually are different in the two frames, but their combined effect on a charged test particle is the same in both frames, after accounting for length contraction and time dilation where necessary.
 
pixel01 said:
There are 2 charged particles, one is moving at speed v, one is stationary. We know the moving charge gives off a magnetic field which can not exert any force onto the other charge because it does not move.
In this frame, the magnetic field of the moving charge does not exert any force on the stationary charge, but the electric field does.
pixel01 said:
Now assume we stay in a frame which moves at a speed of v/2 (the same direction with the moving charge). We can see the first charge moves at v/2 and the second also moves as v/2 (opposite direction) and so there should be some force exerting on both particles?
In this frame there are forces due to both the magnetic field and the electric field. It turns out that, as jtbell mentioned, their sum is equal to the force in the first frame.
 
Thanks jtbell and dalespam. The explanation is very concise.
 
So then...if a charge was at rest in a uniform magnetic field, then there would be no magnetic force...but if the field was set into motion (while the charge was still), would there be a force on the charge?
 
Gear300 said:
So then...if a charge was at rest in a uniform magnetic field, then there would be no magnetic force...but if the field was set into motion (while the charge was still), would there be a force on the charge?
You cannot determine the Lorentz force simply from the magnetic field, you need to specify the electric field also. When you do so and transform the electromagnetic fields to another frame you always obtain the same Lorentz force in each frame.
 
DaleSpam said:
You cannot determine the Lorentz force simply from the magnetic field, you need to specify the electric field also. When you do so and transform the electromagnetic fields to another frame you always obtain the same Lorentz force in each frame.

So let's say that a charged metal ball was placed at rest on a super-cooled surface. The ball is between 2 walls that act as magnetic poles, thus, it is placed within a relatively uniform magnetic field running from one wall to the other. The electric force on the ball is negligible where it is. If the walls started moving, then what would be the case with the ball?
 
  • #10
Does it (the charged ball) curve in trajectory?
 
  • #11
the ball starts off at rest...the walls then start moving, making it so that the magnetic field moves...what would happen to the ball in this case?
 
  • #12
In terms of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formul...in_special_relativity#Electromagnetic_tensor":
[tex]F_{\alpha \beta} = \left( \begin{matrix}<br /> 0 & \frac{-E_x}{c} & \frac{-E_y}{c} & \frac{-E_z}{c} \\<br /> \frac{E_x}{c} & 0 & B_z & -B_y \\<br /> \frac{E_y}{c} & -B_z & 0 & B_x \\<br /> \frac{E_z}{c} & B_y & -B_x & 0<br /> \end{matrix} \right)[/tex]

We have the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulation_of_Maxwell's_equations_in_special_relativity#Lorentz_force":
[tex]f_{\alpha} = \frac{d p_{\alpha}}{d \tau} \, = q \, F_{\alpha \beta} \, u^\beta[/tex]

So suppose in the wall's frame (ball moving with velocity -v in the x direction) we have a uniform magnetic field of strength B in the z direction with no electric field then:
[tex]f_{\alpha} = q \, \left( \begin{matrix}<br /> 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & 0 & B & 0 \\<br /> 0 & -B & 0 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & 0 & 0 & 0<br /> \end{matrix} \right) \, \left( \begin{matrix}<br /> c \gamma \\<br /> -v \gamma \\<br /> 0\\<br /> 0<br /> \end{matrix} \right) = \left( \begin{matrix}<br /> 0 \\<br /> 0\\<br /> B q v \gamma \\<br /> 0<br /> \end{matrix} \right)[/tex]

Boosting that to the ball's frame (the wall is moving with velocity v in the x direction) we have:
[tex]f'_{\alpha} = q \, \left( \begin{matrix}<br /> 0 & 0 & -\frac{B v \gamma }{c} & 0 \\<br /> 0 & 0 & B \gamma & 0 \\<br /> \frac{B v \gamma }{c} & -B \gamma & 0 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & 0 & 0 & 0<br /> \end{matrix} \right) \, \left( \begin{matrix}<br /> c \\<br /> 0 \\<br /> 0\\<br /> 0<br /> \end{matrix} \right) = \left( \begin{matrix}<br /> 0 \\<br /> 0\\<br /> B q v \gamma \\<br /> 0<br /> \end{matrix} \right)[/tex]

Again the electromagnetic fields Lorentz transform such that the Lorentz force on any test charge is the same in all frames. The charged ball experiences a force wether it is the wall or the ball that is moving. In the frame where the wall is at rest we attribute it to the magnetic field and in the frame where the ball is at rest we attribute it to the electric field.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
I see...thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K